memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Renegade54/Archive01
Wikipedia links I suppose it's good that you're applying the template in place of manual links, although I'm not sure I see much of a point in doing it myself. Do you think we need links to Wikipedia articles for pages like Chin'toka system? When I think about it, in most cases the Wikipedia page is -- or should be -- just a less detailed version of ours. I don't know though. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:27, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) :I don't disagree... the links were already there to the Wikipedia articles, and I'm just cleaning them up. You're probably right about the lack of usefulness of some of those Trek-related Wikipedia articles. If ours aren't more complete, then we're doing something wrong! Renegade54 20:52, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::That makes the template used even more useful. Via its "What links here" page, we can then check which pages have a link and probably need more information. Nice work... :) -- Cid Highwind 20:55, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::Excellent point, Cid. Anyway, thanks for cleaning up the template, category, etc. stuff Renegade. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:36, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) Category:Armed conflicts I don't know if you saw it or not, but there has already been a proposal for an armed conflicts category higher up on the Category suggestions page, under Wars/Conflicts. You might want to think about moving your proposal for the category and comments up to that page. Also, your "category demo" page Armed conflicts, "conflicts" with the already created page Military conflicts. I don't see a problem with keeping it (for now) as an category example and alphabetized list, but it might get deleted soon. Also, Military conflicts seems to have much more battles than your page does.--Tim Thomason 00:36, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I hadn't noticed the proposal higher up on the page... my mistake, I should've looked more carefully, I guess! It would appear that the author of the other proposal had the same basic intent as me, though. And I can see a use for both an alphabetical listing and a chronological one, although an actual category would end up, by nature, being an alphabetical one. The entries in my demo list are only the pages I found on the page. I knew there would be a number of other pages that already had one or more categories applied to them, and doing a quick check of some of the other conflicts mentioned, that is indeed the case. Many of those, though, are falling only under the "pseudo-categories" like Template:pna or Category:Memory_Alpha_featured_articles. Other are currently categorized under the respective planets or systems they were fought in, such as Category:Earth. In any case, I still feel that Armed Conflicts is preferrable to Military Conflicts in that not all such conflicts are military in origin (although, certainly, most are) and just Conflicts is too broad, and not necessarily indicitive of the armed nature of a war, battle, rebellion, etc. Still plenty of room for discussion, apparently. :) :I'm also of the mind that most (if not all) articles should fall under at least one category. That may not be practical, but there are currently over 1000 that have no category at all, and, personally, I'd like to see that reduced. I may be in a minority on that, though... I'm not really sure. Renegade54 12:57, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) Possesive form Not for nothing but the possesive form of a word ending in s (as in Nagus) is still to add 's. Only plural forms ending in s are made possesive by adding just the '. So technically, Nagus's staff is the correct possesiv. Logan 5 18:27, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC) Punctuation I noticed that you've been putting periods at the end of episode citations :He was assigned to Starbase 32. (TNG: "Violations").' not that its any concern of mine, but i believe this was discussed and people decided it was wasteful in 2004 or so. Just letting you know that they'll probably be removed by a copyeditor. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:38, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC) :Actually, if you look closely, what I've been doing is ''removing the periods at the end of citations. :) -- Renegade54 16:41, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC) Ha -- i needed my first cup of coffee before i could start squinting at these things. Right-o then. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:00, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC) Tagging episodes as PNA I don't know why this has been such an issue with our community, but we do have a template, which has been nominated for deletion. I think it could be useful, you might want to start using that instead and putting it in the Summary section. What do you think? --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 23:02, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) :Wikicities (our host) is free, although I guess getting too superfluous would hurt their resources. The main isssue was the duty roster and whether to use the template or that page. I'll put a note on the template about clearing the ep from the duty roster before removing the template, that should be a good compromise. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 23:16, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::I was actually going to leave you a message asking you to apply the PNA template when you apply the nav template, but I see the issue was being discussed already. I think you should apply both templates though and avoid a second edit from me or someone else to apply the PNA one. Weyoun 08:15, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) Constant edits to Kirk Please keep your edits to a minimum when making copyedits. Each time you save a page you are saving a duplicate file over the previous file. By using the show preview and limiting your edits to a minimum, you are helping us reduce the load on our database. In this case, your ten edits to the James Kirk page (which is almost 90kb in size) just created 10 x 90 kb files... Please use the "show preview" feature before saving your edits, thanks. --Alan del Beccio 01:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC) From User talk:Gvsualan :I always use the preview function before saving an edit. The many edits don't stem from that at all, but instead are from me editing one section at a time, rather than the whole page at once. Should we, then, refrain from using the section edit feature? -- Renegade54 01:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC) ::For the sake of convenience, especially in the case of making extremely minor edits like you were doing, I think it would be more efficient to do it at once -- both in monitoring recent changes and in preventing excessive loads on our database. Section editing is more practical if you are adding some volume of text, images, etc. --Alan del Beccio 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks! Hey, on behalf of MA, thanks for making all those formatting improvements to articles. I believe that is one of MA's weak spots that not many people do. :) --Galaxy001 03:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC) *I'd also like to thank you for cleaning up after me (especially all those classical music articles)! I'm kind of writing them in a hurry, because I want to be finished by tonight, so Thanks alot! :-) --Jörg 18:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Challenge undertaken OK, I gave my first pass to Worf, and revised the Early Life section. If it's an improvement at all, I'm sure there's still stuff to fix. --Aurelius Kirk 12:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC) *Howdy, your edits to Worf were great, thanks. I wasn't sure about that new opening lead, but you really made it work welll. The artice is a mess now, and will look that way for a few days while I fact-check and string it all together. I wouldn't want you to waste any time with fine-tuned copyedits and formatting until it's all in better shape. --Aurelius Kirk 12:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Admin? Just wondering, have you ever considered going for being an admin? You seem to make a lot of contributions to the database, but I wanted to ask you. --Galaxy001 19:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Tricobaltx device * I'm curious what you are doing with this article?--Alan del Beccio 07:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) ** Trying to move Tri-cobalt device to Tricobalt device... for some reason it wasn't allowing the move directly, so I was attempting to go through a temp rename. I just wrote Tim a message asking him to look at it. -- Renegade54 07:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC) *** Thanks :) -- Renegade54 07:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Re:Saul Thanks! :) Now I gotta work on Persis. She was a much more prominent character, yet her article has a lot less info. Anyways, thanks again for the compliment; it's much appreciated. :) --From Andoria with Love 06:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Searching In the edit summary of several of your month stubs (not marked oddly), you state "more to come when search works again." What do you mean by that? I don't know if Wikicities is going to go back to the old search engine or not, but it is quite simple using advanced search to look through just mainspace articles. See here for a list of all the main namespace articles mentioning the word "january."--Tim Thomason 00:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC) RE: Your Ten Forward comments I'm sorry, but this is not something I can simply "overlook." I am very curious to know at which point in my comment I insulted, embarassed or, for that matter, personally addressed you to deserve to be cold cocked like I was in your response to me? Please, I insist that you point my hurtful, degrading, or "annoying" words out to me, so as to help me justify why it was acceptable for someone to make a blatant '''personal attack like that, which this site claims to have no tolerance for, when all I simply stated was: that on a Star Trek wiki, an actual Star Trek character would be expected to be a more common or popular search result than an everyday real world term. I fail to see how this is "annoying," or that how my commenting on a page I just so happened to create has any bearing on what I said. Seriously, I've had over 25,000 edits on this site; it's a whole lot harder to find an article that I haven't had a part in creating, writing, rewriting or making a minor edit on, than it is to find one that I have contributed to. What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying I'm not allowed to have an opinion, or simply comment on an article which I took part in writing? Even so, I fail to see how that helps justify what you said? --Alan del Beccio 13:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Spanish Interwikis Hi, thanks for your effort, but actually my Bot was going to do that task as soon as the interwikis were activated, I will now start this -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 16:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Movie page links I thought (still do) that adding the preceding following likns to the infobox complemented the ones at the bottom. They saves scrolling when you are surfing said pages, and they remind the reader of the film order for the unnumbered films. —MJBurrage 07:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Beverly Washburn Hi, I was just curious why you edited out the appearances section? I was following another actor's page when I put that in. I thought maybe it was because she had only one appearance, but I've seen it done that way with other actors who have appeared once too. This isn't a complaint, I was just curious as to the reason. I thought it worked well, even though it repeats info from the very short bio. Is there a rule for this situation? Thanks! :Yeah, that's why... I figure it's rather redundant. There are two basic formats people seem to use when doing production writeups like that; one is to list the credits in the body (if there's only one or two) and the other is to present a (longer) list of credits after the writeup (usually if there's a bunch). Normally you'd do one or the other. There are probably a few that have slipped by that have both, but like I said, it seems rather redundant. I'd say, as a rule, if you want the credit at the end, then the body should be filled with other biographical info and/or non-Trek credits. Nothing against Beverly, per se! :) -- Renegade54 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Template:Calendar Hi Renegade. I saw you created Template:Calendar, which I changed a bit, and commented on the talk page. I also didn't reply to your comment on User talk:Cid Highwind/Main Page yet, sorry for that. If you're interested in a calendar template, maybe we can work on that together? -- Cid Highwind 07:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)